- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 11836 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. H.S. MANJULA W/O SRI B.R. SATHISH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 2. SRI H.S. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 3. SRI H.S. MANJUNATH S/O SRI SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RESIDENT OF MUTHINAMMA TEMPLE HIREMAGALUR, CHIKKAMAALURU - 577 102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H.S. LOKESH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING OF LAKSHMIPURA ROAD HIREMAGALUR CHIKKAMAGALURU PIN - 577 102. 2. SMT. BHADRAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI UMESH S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 3. SMT. ANASUYA Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 4. SRI RAJU S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 5. KUM. LATHA D/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 6. KUM. SUDHA D/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. 7. KUM. SHOBHA D/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 8. KUM. ASHA D/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 ARE RESIDENT OF LAKSHMIPURA ROAD HIREMAGALURU CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 102. 9. SRI H.S. KAMALAMMA W/O K.C. DEVARAJ AED ABOUT 58 YEARS BEHIND AIT LADIES HOSTEL BYE PASS ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A V GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-7 SERVED; V/O DTD 16.10.2025 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 TO R-6 & R-8 ARE H/S,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN O.S.NO.22/2015 ON I.A.NO.11 DATED 18.02.2019-MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER Plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 18.02.2019 passed on I.A No.11 in O.S No. 22/2015 by the Court of 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioners herein have filed O.S No.22/2015 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Chikmagalur seeking the relief of partition and separation possession of the suit schedule properties and also for mesne profits. 4. Contesting defendants have filed written statement opposing the suit claim. In the said proceedings, I.A No.11 was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of CPC to send the blood samples of the plaintiffs and the defendants to the expert to determine the relationship of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 parties by conducting DNA test. The said application was opposed by the contesting defendants by filing objection and the application was rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are children of Smt. Janakamma who was married to Sri. Shivalingappa, parents of the petitioners are no more. The defendants are the sisters and brother of Janakamma, who have denied the relationship and have raised a contention that Janakamma had no issues. He submits that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting I.A No.11. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI -VS- ROHIT SHEKAR AND ANOTHER - (2012) 12 SCC 554. 6. Per-contra learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the order impugned. 7. According to the plaintiffs, they are the children of Janakamma who is the sister of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit. Plaintiffs claim that Janakamma had married - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 Shivalingappa and they are born from the said wedlock, whereas the defendants have denied the same and in the written statement they have specifically stated that Janakamma was not married and she had died issueless. 8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of HAREESH @ HARISHKUMAR -VS- A. S UMESH AND ORS - (2025) SCC OnLine Kar 18499 in paragraph No 12.3 has observed as follows: "12.3. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh then in the case of MEDIDA VEERAIAH @ VEERA REDDY v. MEDIDA VIJAYA NARASIMHA RAO has held as follows: “…. …. …. 27. On consideration of the judgments referred above, it is obvious that a DNA test can be ordered in appropriate cases where there is necessity. It is also clear that a DNA test cannot be ordered in a routine manner. The facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken into consideration for ordering DNA test. The parties have to bring their prima facie evidence on record to show their relationship. If the court is not satisfied with the prima facie evidence, then the court may order DNA test in appropriate cases by following the ratio laid down in the judgments - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 referred above. The court cannot merely order DNA test on mere asking of the parties to decide the relationship. Generally in criminal cases, and matrimonial offences, DNA test is being ordered. In cases like partition and civil disputes, Courts are slow in ordering DNA test; the reasons being that there is a presumption under section 112 of Indian Evidence Act with regard to the paternity. The petitioner has to come forward with specific denial of his paternity, and his prima facie case to prove his paternity, and then only he can ask the court for a DNA test. There are disadvantages in ordering DNA test in some cases. The DNA test asked in this case by the petitioner who claims to be son of respondent No. 1. This is a case where the petitioner is raised about 35 years. There must be prima facie some material to connect the relationship with the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It is obvious that the trial Court has not considered any prima facie case brought by the petitioner on record. There is no discussion with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 basing on any documents. The trial Court has merely passed an order stating that as there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 with regard to paternity, the DNA test is ordered. In the light of the above decisions of Hon'ble Supreme - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 Court held that a DNA test cannot be ordered in a routine manner." 9. In the case of NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.15 has observed that a child has a right to know the truth of his/her origin, and right of a child to know his biological roots can be enforced through reliable scientific tests and if the interest of the child is best subserved by establishing paternity of someone who is not the husband of his mother, the Court should not shut that consideration altogether. Indian law casts an obligation upon biological father to maintain his child and does not disregard the rights of an illegitimate child to maintain. In the said case, the question with regard to legitimacy of a child born and question of paternity had arisen and it is under the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted DNA Test. 10. In the present case, parents of the petitioners have expired. Prayer made by the petitioners is to collect the blood samples of the petitioners and the defendants and forward the same to an expert for DNA test. The request made by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45674 WP No. 11836 of 2019 petitioners is only to prove the genealogy tree of the family and not the paternity. Therefore, the judgment in the case of NARAYAN DUTT TIWARI (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. For the purpose of proving genealogy tree or family tree, a party to the partition suit can always produce oral and documentary evidence and it is not necessary to conduct a DNA test for the same. 11. The Trial Court was therefore fully justified in rejecting I.A No. 11 in O.S 22/2015 . Therefore, I do not find any irregularity in the said order. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 12. I.A No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27